tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC September 2, 2009 11:00pm-12:00am EDT
developments of the obama era thus far has been the extent to which the voice of national security coming from the republican party has been that of former vice president dick cheney. a man who rarely spoke publicly while he was in office but who has been the unshushable voice of the right and all things national security ever since. the reason it's difficult for the republican party to have dick cheney as their voice on national security is that he's not only potentially indictable for his role in the bush administration's decisions to okay torture, it's also that the planet from which mr. cheney's voice emanates appears to be a relatively fact-free one. he has been asserting in the face of bold facts to the contrary that torture has been proven to work. that saddam hussein did have contacts with al qaeda, that guantanimo has been a big ball of wind for the united states. an exercise in lawless imprisonment that americans should just be proud of. and, of course, he's been asserting that the war in iraq was absolutely necessary.
no regrets on that one. >> i don't look at it as we got it so wrong. but i think we have. >> a big part of it wrong. there weren't any weapons of mass destruction. >> there were parts of it that were right. it wasn't 100% wrong. so the intelligence was flawed. but you never have perfect intelligence in this business. >> that has been the firm line from planet cheney. sure, what we said was true about iraq. to start that war, turned out not at all to be true. and if we didn't know it, we sure should've known it, but no regrets, i'm still glad we did it. last night on this show, i had for me what was a long-awaited chance to interview one of the men who played a role in selling that war, tom ridge, even presidential hopeful in the future. a man who since his time as the nation's first homeland security secretary seemed to be one of the people who had a real shot of becoming a new voice for the
republican party on national security. one that could supplant the divorced from reality extremism we've been hearing from former vice president cheney and oddly from his daughter. if the republican party is to move beyond the disgrace of the bush years foreign policy and the disasters for that party that followed that disgrace, it has seemed to me they would have to find a way to rejoin the debate here on planet earth to find a new leading voice on national security that isn't cheney, that no matter the strength of its disagreements with liberals and democrats, it isn't a voice that's still trying to sell us the iraq war. to my honest surprise, governor ridge on this program last night declined to try to be that voice. offered the opportunity to distance himself from the transmissions we've been getting from planet cheney. mr. ridge, instead, said no
regrets. we have received a ton of feedback. on this interview we did on the show last night. and it seems that this part of it, which we're going to show you here, were my shock and surprise at his answer may be evident is the reason why. you were a crucial, authoritative part of making what turned out to be a false case to the american people about iraq being a threat and us needing to attack them. february 2003, you said on abc, i agree that the president has said the world community said this is a rogue regime that has chemical biological weapons, trying to develop nuclear weapons, means of delivery, that's the reason this needs to be disarmed. the world community has known for 12 years he's got chemical biological weapons, means of delivery and that's precisely the reason the united states and its partners are trying to disarm saddam hussein, he's a threat to his region, he is a threat to our allies, to us, you made that case a month before we started invading. do you regret that? >> no. >> do you think it's true? >> at the time i thought it was true and subsequent to that, the
president's leadership and the things we've done have kept america safe. >> do you think that saddam hussein was a threat to us at the time that we invaded? >> based on not only the intelligence we had and the intelligence we shared, i believe, has been known by the brits and by the french, used weapons of mass destruction, that he was against several intelligence agencies thought he still had them. >> you believed it at the time? >> yeah. >> you don't still believe it, do you? >> well, it's pretty clear that the intelligence communities of several countries who claimed that he had weapons of mass destruction hadn't found them. so again -- >> you think they might still be there? >> i doubt it. i think we've covered that country. but there are other regions to go in. >> i think you making that argument right now is why republicans after the bush and cheney administration are not going to get back the country's trust on national security. the system was broken. and if you don't see that the
system was broken and you think it was just that the intel was wrong, i think that you're one of the most trusted voices on national security for the republican party. and i think that's the elephant in the room. i don't think you guys get back your credibility on national security until you realize that was a wrong decision made by policymakers, it wasn't the spy's fault. >> i think your suggestion that it was driven by quite obviously the people who made the decision knew more about the threat than you and i do. and, again, i think it's a pretty radical conclusion to suggest that men and women trusted with the safety of this country would predicate a decision upon any other basis other than to keep america safe. we've been litigating it now for about five or six years. i guess we're going to continue to litigate it. and the historians and the final history hasn't been written because it's iraq. it's some form of self-government. some form of democracy ultimately is achieved in iraq and it's not going to look
exactly. but the muslim world does admire democracy. as difficult as it is over there, the notion we went in improperly will be obviously reversed and the history is yet to be written. democracy -- >> reversed? >> democracy in iraq will make a huge difference not just for the men and women and the people and families in iraq but for the entire region. >> you can go back in time and sell the american people on the idea that 4,000 americans ought to lose their lives and lose those trillions of dollars for democracy in iraq. you have a wilder imagination than i do. we were sold that war because of 9/11. we were sold that war because of the threat of weapons of mass destruction from this guy who didn't have them and our government should've known it. and frankly a lot of people believe our government did know it and it was a cynical decision and maybe everybody wasn't in on it and maybe that is a radical thing to conclude. >> i don't share that point of view, you do. >> i know. >> the point that i was ineloquently trying to make at the close of that interview was that this is important information to know about tom ridge.
but i think and i wanted to expand on it tonight to say this. i think it's even more important information to know about the republican party in general. and about whether or not we are going to get back to a point in this country where both sides, both the left and the right have something useful, something that relates to the facts, to bring to the most important decisions that a country like ours has to make. war and peace, national security, the way we behave in the world, the way we ensure our survival of the nation. if we look at the iraq war now six years on and say, well, none of those reasons for the war turned out to be true, but what does that matter? if there isn't any regret for having started that war under false pretenses, if the thing that republicans think we're going to be litigating forever is whether or not the people who sent us to war based on false information owe the country any sort of apology, whether those people should at least admit to getting it wrong, then the republican party, i think is still broadcasting from planet cheney. the foreign policy disaster that
was the bush-cheney years may have resulted in electoral disaster for the republican party. but it's not yet resulted in a republican change of heart or change of mind. on the one side of the aisle, for example, there's this serious debate underway about counterinsurgency and the utility of trying to build a state in afghanistan using foreign troops. on the other hand, they're still pounding the table about saddam's fake wmd. two different worlds. we're not participating in a debate here. if you are a fan of a one-party state, congratulations, that's what america has got right now on foreign policy and national security. if it's not going to be tom ridge, i don't know who it will be who brings the republican party back to earth, back to serious legitimate debates over facts that everyone agrees on about what our country needs to do, about war and peace, about how to recover from the governmental disaster that started the iraq war over a threat that was not there.
if you like one-party states, congratulations. if, on the other hand, you like a good debate, you think that two parties honestly and respectfully fighting it out makes us stronger, i'm sorry, but we're not there yet. the american lifestyle without energy. we have all this energy here in the u.s. we have wind. we have solar, obviously. we have lots of oil. i think natural gas is part of the energy mix of the future. i think we have the can-do. we have the capability. we have the technology. the solutions are here. we just need to find them here.
one thing we know about president obama, when things are not going his way politically, he often makes a very good speech. there's word today that the president will convene a joint session of congress for a speech next week on health reform. senate veteran lawrence o'donnell joins us for a check-up on what a good talking to can achieve when it comes to health care reform. that's next. (announcer) before they give you the lowest price, some pharmacies make you work for it with memberships and fees. but not walmart. they have hundreds of generic prescriptions for just $4 for up to a 30-day supply
a week from tonight, president obama will deliver a prime time health care speech to a joint session of congress. a speech to a joint session of congress is a really big deal for a speech on a single topic. joint sessions are usually reserved for things like the state of the union or foreign leaders addressing congress. it's not unprecedented, though, for the president to convene all of congress for an address on one subject. president george w. bush, for example, did it in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks. and like president obama, president bill clinton convened a joint session to give an address on health care. eight months into his first year in office. >> for the first time in this century, leaders of both political parties have joined together around the principle of providing universal, comprehensive health care. it is a magic moment, and we must seize it. >> that speech may be most remembered as the one that president clinton delivered
almost flawlessly even though a different speech, the wrong speech had been loaded into his teleprompter. the president had to recite his health care speech from memory while watching the words of the wrong script scroll up on the tv cameras he was looking into. it's very hard to do. let's play "oddball." president clinton later said during that speech he thought god must be testing me. accounted in the book "the agenda" when clinton was asked about what it felt like giving the most important speech of his life. with the wrong text in front of him. his exact quote was, "well, i thought god, you're testing me." okay. he so did give a bang-up partially off the top of his head speech, and he did get a boost in the polls after that speech, but there is a reason why we are still trying to reform health care 16 years after bill clinton's stab at it. clinton may have won with his joint address to congress, but he did not win health reforms. is it going to be any different
this time? joining us now is msnbc political analyst lawrence o'donnell who was in the chamber the night president clinton gave his health care address in '93. thanks very much for coming on the show. >> great to be here, rachel. >> we know that president clinton got a boost for his big health care speech, big joint session speech, the one you were there at. but it still failed. do you think that obama is in a similar place now in september '09 that clinton was in in september '93? >> he's actually in a much worse place. at the time bill clinton gave the speech, the republicans were poised to legislate. there were republican bills being offered by senator john chafee, member of the finance committee. bob dole at that point was in our private and secret negotiations with him, very available to the notion of doing something. dole because he decided to run for president drifted away over time. but there was much, much, much more possibility at the time bill clinton gave his speech. he wasn't doing it from a defensive posture. he was doing it to launch the
campaign, the legislative campaign to get this done. and this was -- clinton's was a planned speech. obama is giving a speech they never intended to make. september was supposed to be the signing ceremony in the rose garden for this legislation, which was supposed to have gotten out of committees early in the spring and then passed on the floor of both bodies in august and maybe conferenced in september. so they're doing something now that was not in their script. they're doing this from desperation. >> well, if at this point things looked better for president clinton than they do for president obama on health reform, is this white house learning from that experience in terms of even if they're in a worse place right now, are they learning from '93 about what went wrong then in terms of making their decisions on what to do next? >> well, they think they are. there's a bunch of lessons that people -- some people take from it and other people take other lessons for it.
for example, the obvious lesson they thought they learned was do not send the congress a written bill. hillary clinton's famous 1,400 page written bill because then the congress will then have to rip that apart and do its own thing. so now we've seen the opposite tactic used and the opposite tactic is no better. i think what you're seeing to a great extent here is what i've held to be the case many years now, which was even though at the time i thought hillary clinton made many mistakes, they weren't really making mistakes, we just weren't going to be able to do this. and the obama approach to the extent it's opposite from the clinton approach simply shows you that neither one of these approaches works in this area. >> is there an approach you think does work or would work or could work in fantasy? >> well, you know, i don't -- here's the fantasy approach and i don't think it's fantasy anymore. i think the democrats should shut up about this for two years after '94 and then started very seriously proposing medicare for all. and then maybe 13 or 12 years later when you get another democratic president the country might be ready for it. but it would take a decade of
campaigning for medicare for all. ted kennedy came on board with medicare for all. you've heard how articulate weiner as a member of the house is for medicare for all and there's a huge advantage to it, which is it's very easy to understand and we're all related to someone who can explain it to us. if you don't know what medicare is, ask your grandmother, now there's no one and anyone in any kitchen table around america who can explain what any one of these bills are in the house or the senate. >> do you think that president obama can reset the debate enough to reclaim the possibility of the health reform this year? or do you think it's completely impossible? >> i don't think the speech can do that. speeches do not drive legislation. as bill clinton's speech showed. bill clinton's speech was very strong. he actually held up a veto pen, something we've never seen in that chamber before. and said if you don't give me universal coverage by which he meant, if you don't give me the employer mandate, which was then the hot-button issue in the
legislation, if you don't give me that, i will veto what you send me. it was very dramatic. i was actually sitting beside bob packwood, the republican senator at the time, who was the lead republican on the finance committee, the equivalent of chuck grassley now and i said to him immediately after the speech because i thought this was the very, very strong moment and it was kind of a scary moment in legislation because the president is saying if you don't have this specific thing in it, it's dead, and that's very rare. i said to him, what are you going to do? he says you have to have an employer mandate and bob packwood's reaction was, i don't believe him. and that's the big challenge 0 that the president has next week. is he has to have republicans and democrats walking out of that hall believing him. that he will hold to a certain set of conditions. that is a very difficult thing to achieve in that room. >> lawrence o'donnell, msnbc political analyst and today's bucket of cold water in the face. lawrence, thanks very much. >> sorry, rachel. >> no, it's okay, we all need it every once in a while. thanks very much for joining us. it's good to see you. >> thanks, rachel.
if you are searching for a visual metaphor for how out of control things are getting for americans in afghanistan, try this one. these are american contractors assigned to guard the u.s. embassy in kabul. yeah, the naked guy too. all that's missing is a coverage shell and a kid name piggy with glasses.
your hair mixes with pollen and dust. i get congested. but now with zyrtec-d®, i have the proven allergy relief of zyrtec®, plus a powerful decongestant. zyrtec-d® lets me breathe freer, so i can love the air™. (announcer) zyrtec-d®. behind the pharmacy counter. no prescription needed. great looking skin... it's in the dna. [ female announcer ] new regenerist dna cream with spf 25 doesn't just correct. it helps protect your dna without a $200 department store price tag. olay regenerist.
call or click today. senator ted kennedy left a void in american liberalism. and tonight there's news that another enormously influential american liberal might soon be leaving public life, as well. it's a supreme court story. jonathan turly joins us to talk about that in a moment. but first, time for a couple of holy mackerel stories in the news today.
if there is a benefit to the maddening democratic party failure on the issue of the public health insurance option, it could be the revival of the once believed to be extinct hard line liberal base. drew its own line in the sand by saying it would not support democratic candidates who did not support the public option in health reform. and as david serota of the huffington post noted today, threats from the left have shifted the rhetoric of incumbent senator michael bennett of colorado. here's where senator bennett started. in a town hall meeting in pueblo on saturday. senator bennett gave flimsy support to the idea of the public option. he said then that he favored the option, but "as i stand here today, i think it's very unlikely that the public option part of this will pass." in other words, he was saying he would probably vote for health reform without the public option. then, reports circulated that senator bennett will likely face
a primary challenge from a democratic challenger. and now look at what senator bennett has posted at his website. >> i do support a public option as part of this. i have said i support a public option. i've supported a public option. i support a public option. i've supported a public option. why? i support having a public plan. >> so the senator supports the public option after all. you know, having been taken for granted and triangulated and on occasion just stomped on during decades of democratic policy decisions, the left may be learning its lesson. if you don't lie down in front of the door, you're less likely to be used as a door mat. meanwhile the senate seat filled for 47 years by ted kennedy will have a new resident thanks to a special election in massachusetts in january. and it seems that a genuine new england legend, a man who brought ted kennedy and the whole of boston glory that washed away heart break nearly a century old might be considering a run for that office.
his name is curt schilling, the bloody sox hero who pitched the 2004 boston red sox to the team's first world championship in 86 years. curt schilling says he has been contacted about a possible run for the senate. after that interview, he wrote this on his website. "i do have some interest in the possibility. i'm not going to comment further on the matter since at this point it would be speculation on top of speculation." as much joy as curt schilling surely brought ted kennedy in october of 2004 and me, it's important to note that curt schilling is no liberal, no democrat, he publicly and supported the reelection of george w. bush in 2004. and he campaigned for john mccain, and he remains a republican. which is to say that the big righty is a big righty, just so you know, important to remember.
and finally president obama had his first conversation by phone today with incoming japanese prime minister hatoyama who won his position in sunday's national election. now, the two leaders pledged to strengthen ties and work for international peace and, you know, that sort of not all that holy mackerel kind of thing they always do. but what they probably didn't discuss is mr. hatoyama's nickname, which is the alien. they call him the alien because he has prominent eyeballs or he's considered to have prominent eyeballs. i don't think they're all that prominent, but anyway. they probable also didn't discuss the fact that the new prime minister's wife, the future first lady of japan has apparently met actual aliens. mrs. hatoyama wrote a book last year titled "very strange things i've encountered." she's not kidding about the title. name another first lady of anything who ever wrote something like this about a life experience 20 years ago. "while my body was asleep, i
think my soul rode on a triangular-shaped ufo and went to venus. it was a very beautiful place and it was really green." which doesn't sound like venus, but full disclosure, i've never been, who am i to say? and i for one welcome them visiting our japanese lady overlord. no problem. ♪ mind if i take a shortcut? yeah, sure. ♪ i knew the subaru legacy was the smart choice... what i didn't expect... was the fun. the all-new subaru legacy. feel the love.
here's the good news. about the latest round of photos to surface of americans in a war zone. photos that involve nudity, simulated sex and other frankly totally inexplicable obscenity that has no registration to what we thought america was doing and what we used to call the war on terror. the good news about these images, none of the nudity and simulated sex this time apparently is being forced on prisoners. the activity you see here does not appear to be tied to a larger campaign of down the rabbit hole voodoo science, intimidation and torture as were
the last photos from the prison at abu ghraib. the good news about these photos. also the people you see pictured here are not members of the united states military. that is all good news. the bad news, is that you and i have been and are still paying these guys in those photos $180 million a year to guard the u.s. embassy in kabul. because apparently in some accounting somewhere it turns out to be a genius idea to pay to have these guys guard the most important american building anywhere in the world outside of america instead of having the u.s. marines do it. which is how we used to guard our embassies when we were a normal country, with a normal relationship to our normal military. the images you see here are of contractors who have the current contract to guard the american embassy in kabul. they are being paid by the u.s. state department. two years ago the state department investigated this contract and found the company
to be "deficient." a follow-up senate report on the contractors called them "a case study of how mismanagement and lack of oversight can result in poor performance." but yet, earlier this summer, despite those findings, the contract got reupped. now it's the project on government oversight, the non-profit watchdog group that has written to the state department and passed on these photos it says are from whistle blowers. and this time now that we've got photos of naked contractors in the capital of a country americans are still fighting and dying in because we're supposedly helping them build national respect for the authority of government. now that we've got pictures of naked american contractors on the state department payroll drinking vodka out of each other's butts, now apparently the state department is really looking into whether this contract is still a good idea. now they're really looking into
it. the department spokesman saying investigators will be sent to the embassy in a few days and the department's inspector general is also investigating. this latest controversy only underscoring the biggest picture concern about this life during wartime. about what it is we are doing in afghanistan and to what end. a new congressional research service report finds that as of march of this year, contractors employed by the defense department out number our troops in afghanistan. and that doesn't even count the contractors that work for the state department and other agencies. afghanistan is now host to "the highest recorded percentage of contractors used by the defense department in any conflict in the history of the united states." and remember, when you think contractors, think these guys. yeah. the majority of the people for whom we are footing the bill to be in afghanistan are for profit contractors. meanwhile, a new cnn poll puts opposition to the war in afghanistan at an all-time high
in this country. 57% of americans now say they are against it. opposition among beltway opinion makers is coming from all sides, as well, with liberal senator russ feingold calling for a timetable to withdrawal and conservative commentator george will this week following suit. in washington, general stanley mcchrystal submitted his review of the law. it reportedly does not request more troops yet for afghanistan, but apparently, reportedly lays the groundwork for that request. president obama's due to be reviewing that report over this coming labor day weekend. and 52,000 americans in uniform in afghanistan now fighting in the deadliest environment for u.s. troops since we invaded eight years ago. wait amid this to hear their future. joining us now spencer, thank you very much for your time tonight. gen good evening, rachel. thanks for having me. >> general mcchrystal's review is reportedly in. what do you think it's likely to say about the goal of the american military fighting in afghanistan right now? >> what general mcchrystal has said ever since his june confirmation hearing is that the overarching goal of american forces in afghanistan is to
protect the population of afghanistan. and that means that primarily in areas afflicted by taliban rule, southern and eastern afghanistan as we've seen. the idea is that as we ensure that the population of afghanistan is away from the taliban, eventually they'll come forward with more and more intelligence tips. this will get us closer to the ultimate goal that president obama laid out in his march speech eradicating al qaeda on the poorest border between afghanistan and pakistan. >> let me ask you about the nuts and bolts of that. the l.a. times reports that the pentagon is planning to add 14,000 combat troops to afghanistan by sending home support units and replacing them, with trigger pullers. if you're nation building, if you're trying to put distance between the taliban and the population of afghanistan, if
you're trying to build support among the afghan people for the legitimate authority of the state, doesn't that mean more forces who do things other than pull triggers, not less? >> it definitely means more. and the question is going to be in this strategy review that we haven't seen the degree to which mcchrystal argues for an increase as he's indicated in the past that he advocates in civilian capabilities in indigenous afghan forces, both security and governmental to ensure that this isn't simply an american face and an american military face on this war. and a lot of people particularly in progressive circles are wondering precisely the question that you're opposing, to what degree do we have a mismatch to not just resources and the goal, but does the goal advance american interests in afghanistan and beyond? >> how insulated is the washington debate from the public opinion on this right now? it's not a direct line between public opinion and decision making on war and peace. when you talk to your officials, do they care about the poll numbers? do they care if the american people don't see the point of
this war? >> they care now. they care in the sense that they're starting to see a greater amount of decay in support for what, you know, no one ever used the term "the good war," but nevertheless, what was presumed to be a bipartisan broad and deep consensus for the mission in afghanistan and now what a lot of people say it appears that support was ultimately as deep as the coverage of afghanistan when it was, of course, overshadowed by the iraq war. and now that the american people are starting to get a sense of precisely how deep this war pledges american commitments in both blood and treasure, the more they're wondering really fundamental questions about it. and that worries a great deal. >> let me ask you one last big question. the argument about contractors is it's a manpower issue. we can't possibly have troops or the state department's diplomatic security corps do this work, do what troops of the
state department used to do. isn't that sort of the point, spencer, that we would self-limit our military ambitions or start a draft if we had to if we didn't have the personnel to do something? we didn't just support infinite military goals by writing infinite checks for the manpower for these countries? >> ultimately comes down to a question of what our national priorities are. as we've seen throughout the course of not just the afghanistan war, but the iraq war, as well, the placement of american contract personnel in traditionally military roles is extremely problematic. we don't know exactly what legal authority they're under. we don't know a whole lot about how they operate in conjunction with the american military. general mcchrystal says that the overarching goal of this war is to protect the afghan people. well, the goal of contractors who are guarding diplomats is to protect the diplomats. and already we've seen, and this is something of an amazing and underappreciated point, the military -- the contractors that guard diplomatic personnel who go outside of the wire, not the ones that we've seen in these
disgusting photographs are blackwater. the same company that opened fire on all of those iraqi civilians in baghdad in 2007. they're out of iraq now and into afghanistan. and the state department doesn't really want to talk a whole lot about the process under which that blackwater might still keep its contract when it's up for bid later this year or early next year. >> spencer akerman, great analysis and as always, concise and to the point. >> thank you. it appears another liberal lion may be approaching the end of his career. and this time it is a supreme court justice. any chance president obama and the congress will replace this liberal with another liberal? jonathan turley joins us next. first, one more thing about giant defense contractors. as spencer was just alluding to, the firm formally known as blackwater, which now calls
itself xe. it was banned from operating in iraq by the iraqi government after the whole allegedly shooting 17 civilians problem. well now blackwater is having its contract in iraq renewed by the u.s. state department. which apparently established the iraqi government in order to ignore all of iraqi's free and sovereign laws. abc news is reporting that blackwater's contract is only temporary until, of course, they'll be replaced by new defense contractors who surely won't break any local laws or embarrass the united states at all, surely. i've still got room for the internet. with my new netbook from at&t. with its built-in 3g network, it's fast and small, so it goes places other laptops can't. anything before takeoff mr. kurtis? prime rib, medium rare. i'm bill kurtis, and i've got plenty of room for the internet. and the nation's fastest 3g network. (announcer) sign up today and get a netbook for $199.99 after mail-in rebate.
with built-in access to the nation's fastest 3g network. only from at&t. but now that i'm breathing better with advair... i can enjoy the zoo with my grandkids. (announcer) for people with copd including chronic bronchitis, emphysema, or both, great news. advair helps significantly improve lung function. while nothing can reverse copd, advair is different from most other medications because it contains both an anti-inflammatory and a long-acting bronchodilator working together to help you breathe better. advair won't replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be use more than twice a day. people with copd taking advair may have a higher chance of pneumonia. advair may increase your risk of osteoporosis and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking advair. we had a great day, grandpa! we sure did. ask your doctor how advair helps improve lung function for better breathing. (announcer) find out how to get your first full prescription free
at advaircopd.com. it's much easier to find money at esurance. great auto insurance rates and lots of discounts! got insurance already? save more with esurance's "switch & save (tm) discount"! it also pays to shop online. you get esurance's "fast 5 (tm) discount" just for getting an instant online quote. - thanks, professor. - don't forget the good student discount. and there's even more discounts! it's no "secret" that you can save hundreds with esurance. make it your "mission" to click or call esurance today. until now, we amateur geeks could only see molecules by looking at or building things like this. big multi-colored models of molecular structure that i've always found very hard to understand. but now, thanks to the miracle
of atomic force microscopes, scientists have managed to take the very first actual photograph of an individual single molecule. which i think we showed before, but we should show again now. come on, put it up there. put it up there. thank you very much. now that is a zoom lens. this is a picture of a single molecule made up of five carbon rings that have diameters about a million times smaller than a grain of sand. can i wrap my mind around what it means to be a million times smaller than a grain of sand? no, i can't and you can't either. what i can now understand is that those models that never made sense to me in organic chemistry, turns out they are freakishly -- look at that, exactly what real molecules look like in the real world which we now know because we can take pictures of them. and that is the record for the single geekiest moment we have ever done ever. and i switched to new one a day women's active metabolism.
a complete women's multivitamin plus more for metabolism support. and that's a change i feel good about. new from one a day. is as easy as one, two, three. with covergirl trublend, if your liquid makeup is a two, then your concealer, powder and blush are too. we've got your number, and it adds up to a more beautiful you.
and now a teeny tiny not very widely covered story that is actually a huge deal. huge as in this is a story that will eventually make a big difference as to what kind of country we live in. 89-year-old supreme court justice john paul stevens has only hired one law clerk for next year's term. why do we care about justices' hiring practices for law clerks? we care because this is a darn good indication that justice stevens may be planning to retire. typically serving justices keep
four law clerks while retired justices have just one. justice stevens, the man in the bow tie here, is thought to be in good health. but considering that he would be 90, 90 years old at the start of the 2010 term, the possibility of his impending retirement is not a shock. but it would deprive the supreme court of one of its most liberal voices. among justice stevens' rulings from his 33 years on the bench, well, in wallace versus jaffree in 1985, he struck down an alabama law that authorized teachers to allow a minute of meditation or prayer in schools. in planned parenthood versus casey in 1992, one of the court's most famous cases, he protected a woman's right to choose. in bush v. gore in 2000, he tried unsuccessfully to try to stop the supreme court from ruling against the florida recount. in roper versus simmons in 2005 he held the death penalty cannot be used for crimes committed by someone under the age of 18. in 2006, he ruled that the guantanamo military commissions
were illegal, writing in a majority opinion that, quote, the executive is bound to comply with the rule of law that prevails in this jurisdiction. john paul stevens was never demonized by the right like senator ted kennedy was, but he has long been anotherle pillar of american liberalism. what happens when he steps down? the president replaced david souter with sonia sotomayor, a moderate, if another liberal, justice stevens leaves the court, will the president pick a true blue liberal to replace him? him? someone who will be as p a champion of liberal causes? a consistent voice as was stevens? or will he again pick a moderate moving the court to the right yet again? joining us now, jountsz turley, professor of university law. nice to see you again. thanks for joining us.
does the news for the 2010 year signal to you that he'll be retiring soon? is that how you read this? >> court commentator are like that. the only way you can tell a shift on the court is who is standing where on lennon's tomb. one of the indicators that you look for is in fact the hiring of judicial clearings. it doesn't mean he can't change his mind but he needs more than this to be a fully serving justice. also, retiring next year makes a certain amount of sense. he will be 90 years old. he will also in february of that year, establish a record as the oldest justice to serve on the court. he would be one year away from setting the record as the longest serving justice. that was justice douglas who he happened to replace in 1975. but there is a lot of reasons for this to happen. the most important is that if he wants to guarantee that he will
be replaced by a true liberal, next year is the year to do that. because if you get too close to the end of the first term, particularly with president obama's poll numbers falling, it becomes more difficult to get a nomination through and much, much more difficult to get a real liberal through. >> if justice stevens does retire forecast this is being addressed next year, as you suggest, do you think that president obama would be working off the same short list of potential nominees that he used to replace justice souter? or would this bring a whole new group of potential into the running? >> i think you really hit the nail on the head in your introduction. liberals i think will be much more vocal on this. they were a bit reluctant to oppose sonia sotomayor even though many were disappointed. if she votes the way she did on the second circuit, liberals will lose ground on the supreme court. she was on the short list for
republican nominations to the court at one point. liberals are very disappointed in that sense, even though they admired her as a person. for stevens, he is a real liberal icon. and there would be a betrayal if there is a politics that's played. and they try to move this nomination and the court to the right. the other thing is that to replace stevens with somebody who was more conservative would have cascading effects. there are a bunch of 5-4 decisions that would be in the balance. and we could lose, that is, liberals could lose considerable ground. particularly civil libertarians could lose considerable ground. >> at the rick of throwing up clay pigeons to be shot at, are there any specific liberal nominees whose names you will be looking to circulate if they are going to pick a liberal to replace him? >> the two people i thought should have gotten the sonia sotomayor nomination should be considered.
my favorite is really harold coe who is in as a former dean of yale. he would send a message to the world. he is not only really incredibly brilliant, he is one of the best minds of his generation, but as he great voice for human rights and it would send a message to the world that obama is committing himself and the court to that human rights agenda. the other is die an wood who i thought would get the nomination. she is more liberal than sonia sotomayor. she is on the seventh circuit. she is widely respected. so there are a number of those possibilities. but i do think you'll see that liberals would be more vocal about saying there should not be compromise to replace such a great and iconic figure as john paul stevens. >> i think you're absolutely right. i have a feeling this will be the first of many conversations on this topic. thank you very much for your time tonight. >> thanks. the cia probe needs to be expanded to include the former vice president.
dick cheney. that suggestion is now coming from rhode island senator sheldon whitehouse. he will join keith on countdown next. stay with us. not looking for a bailout, just a good paying job. that's why i like this clean energy idea. now that works for our whole family. for the kids, a better environment. for my wife, who commutes, no more gettin' jerked around on gas prices... and for me, well, it wouldn't be so bad if this breadwinner brought home a little more bread. repower america. i hope our senators are listening. still haven'ta little more bread. repower america. tried activia? i am definitely a skeptic. my commercials didn't convince you? actually, my mom convinced me. and? activia definitely helped with my occasional irregularity. take the activia challenge. it works or your money back! ♪ activia!
the farmer's almanac is out and they make their predictions for this winter's weather. two words. long underpants. >> oh, no! ♪ the weather outside is frightful ♪ >> they're saying this winter for big chunks of america will be close to an ice cold sandwich. very, very cold, very, very frigid, with a lot of snow. great. just what we need.
we're in the worst recession since the '30s, people are trying to block health care reform, iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, all nightmares, all at once. cooks are coming out of the wood work. dick cheney -- >> the enhanced interrogation techniques were absolutely essential. >> the banks are partying on our dime. and to top it off, the yankees look like they're going to win it all. now you come in here and dump your ice cold sandwich in our lap? metaphorically, it is already cold. okay? given all that we're going through right now, couldn't you have just, you know, lied? come on. it's the weather. it changes all the time. no one will blame you. you could spin it a little, like it lab sparkling winter wonland full of elves and arraign deer and dancing snowmen.
something like. that we've got a lot on our plate here. be a pal. take some off it. if you do, i'll come over and shovel your driveway. >> happy birthday! >> for all my geeky aspirations, i swear by the faerm's almanac, that was terrifying. a cocktail moment clarification for you. monday night, you played a song by a croatian singer where she sing, gap, gap, gap. that's how you say it in croatian. thanks very much. thank you for watching tonight. as always, chris matthews is up next. good night. unite or die. let's play "hardball."
good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. leading off tonight, gather around time. now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their party. barack obama is president. he leads the democratic party that controls the u.s. senate with 59 seats and possibly 60 seats if massachusetts gets itself together politically. the house of representatives with 256 seats, far more than the 218 necessary majority. can the president unite them? can he lead on the issue he has set his heart, on which the democratic party platform is crystal clear, accessible, affordable health care for all? can he make last year's election matter? this means reconciling the demands of liberals with the reality facing the more conservative so-called blue-dog democrats. the left wants a health care public option or else. blue dogs know that could cost them their jobs. with the republicans basically out of the picture it is the blue dogs who hold the power. what does president obama need to say when he addresses a joint